AlexS

Biofuel Production Will Continue to Grow

Biofuels will continue to grow because the biofuels industry has become a powerful special interest with powerful friends in high places in Congress, and Congress can stick it in the eye of big oil by creating nonsensical mandates. All the rest is wind and blather.

America Needs a Natural Gas Transportation Infrastructure

The other thing specifically about natural gas is I suspect it would be more economical to build gas-to-liquids plants and plan on converting natural gas to gasoline (and diesel). You wouldn't really need to change the infrastructure or the vehicles, and it would cut imports. The big problem would probably be getting around regulatory and NIMBY hurdles.

America Needs a Natural Gas Transportation Infrastructure

"Jimmy Carter’s excellent energy policy reduced foreign oil imports by 50% between 1977 and 1982." The numbers might be accurate but your conclusion is incorrect at best. What actually happened is that Richard Nixon imposed price controls on oil and gas in 1971. Oil imports rose from 0.4 billion barrels in 1971 to their medium term high of 2.4 billion barrels in 1979, the year Carter introduced a "phased" withdrawl of oil price controls, although U.S. oil production was essentially flat at from 1979-1981. Carter, thankfully, was beaten by Ronald Reagan, who in 1981 simply removed controls entirely. Imports were down each year from 1980 to 1983, up again in 1984, then down to a local low in 1985 of 1.2 billion barrels. After that they returned to their more normal upward curve that had been established prior to price controls. You can see a nice graph and observe the Nixon/Ford/Carter price control import hump (it's very easy to see) at:

tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav...

Increase of State-Controlled Resources Threatens U.S. Consumers

Our Congress is basically doing the same thing by keeping so much of our potential new oil fields off limits. They just do it sooner in the development stage and with less violence. Plus, Venezuela did it by demanding that oil leases be "renegotiated" to a losing point for XOM and COP, which is sort of what Congress is doing with Gulf of Mexico leases. Rulers all think alike, don't you think?

Why "Drill, Baby, Drill!" Does Not Translate Into Effective National Energy Policy

"Drill, Baby, Drill" is not claimed to be (at least by Republicans) the total of a national energy policy. It is one thing we can do. Actually, the exact proposal is to allow drilling in new areas that we expect will produce a good amount of oil for the effort expended. The author's data supports this in a way, by pointing out the areas that are allowed to be drilled are getting so worked over that production declines. That's why we need to explore in new areas (coastal plain ANWR, offshore U.S. OCS). But if you want to compare slogans, it would appear that the Democrat's slogan is "Don't Drill, Baby, Don't Drill". Perhaps you could have a column on why that is not effective national energy policy, or even a small piece of a national energy policy.

Still an Oil Bull, Lame or Not

You can say mileage has gone down 5% and that's demand destruction. Or you can say the price has doubled and miles have gone down 5%, but therefore total spending on fuel has gone up by slightly less than 100%. I look at value in terms of dollars, not units. A million iPods has more value than 2 million pencils. Do you think you will be spending a lower percentage of your salary on energy in 5, or 10 years? Neither do I. I want my investments to be where the money is.

Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil

Well said, freefall. Of course I'm not sure Obama wouldn't pull a Hugo Chavez and just nationalize it. He's got that lean and hungry look.

Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil

I'll grant you that Republicans have been spending too much, but if you look at both parties you'll only find one with a significant group of people that want to cut spending. And it isn't the Democrats. And speaking of disasters, Obama recently said that to address our energy crisis will take a "complete" transformation of the economy. And I guess he wants to lead it, he of his few years as an urban activist, few years in the state senate, and few years in the U.S. Senate. Why I am worried that someone with no private business experience now calls upon himself to lead (or push) a complete transformation of the U.S. economy?

Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil

And CT, if our taxes went to bridges, fire departments, police, highways, etc., no problem. The Constitution says, "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare." It's the words "common" and "general" that matter. But a quarter of our budget goes specifically to senior citizens (a special interest group if there ever was one). Much of the rest goes to selected people and groups. Corn growers, ethanol blenders, stockholders of Fannie Mae, the list seems endless. I'd like to see us get back to spending for those things we have in common, the bridges, the police, the schools. Enough of this special interest nonsense. We will rue the day (we already are) when the politicians can buy off the votes of their special groups with everyone's money.

Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil

As a Republican I find interesting all these "I am a Democrat, but ..." followed by a host of reasons why the Democratic Party's approach to key issues is nonsense. I would encourage you all to take a look at what your Democratic Party followership will lead to. Maybe it's time for a CHANGE.